Given the spread of terror and terrorism, as one of the most important examples of violence in some Islamic countries in recent years, the present article examines the concept of violence and religious violence and tries to examine the presented jurisprudential arguments about terrorism. The main claim of the article is that although some extremist currents and groups try to justify assassination by presenting some jurisprudential arguments, such a view has no jurisprudential background, and the above arguments also fail to prove the legitimacy of assassination. The proof of this claim clearly shows that, contrary to some views of Orientalists, it is not possible to accept the inherent harshness of Islam by relying on such views. Contrary to what seems logical, misconceptions about religious teachings that have been perpetuated by some extremist groups have produced violence in certain circumstances and contexts.

Since Sept. 2001 incident and the American occupation of Afghanistan, Pakistani Army has always been regarded as the frontline guard against fundamentalism and the main bridge for the military operations against Taliban and al-Qaeda. By the same token, the US has revised its foreign policy priorities in relations with Pakistan, leading to the elimination of the sanctions taken previously for its nuclear testing and the military rule. Islam Abad’s special stance in the War against Terror is the main reason for change in Washington's policy and the reasons for this change of policy is the impetus of this article. Accordingly, the article proposes that al-Qaeda’s relation with extremist religious seminaries in Pakistan and their determination to expand the extremist doctrines, Taliban’s presence and influence in Pakistan’s tribal autonomous region, Pakistani terrorist groups and their close ties with Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Taliban are the main reasons for Pakistan’s close cooperation with the US, without which any operation against terrorism remains almost endless.

Following the 9/11 attacks, the US, as a part of its "war on terrorism", attacked Afghanistan and Iraq to lead what was called a campaign to liberate all the people from terrorism and direct them towards freedom and democracy. In the years that followed, thousands of people were killed, injured, and lost their homes; thousands of people tried to find refuge in other countries; and incalculable losses were incurred. Terrorism, however, was not stopped and terrorist activities spread all over the world. This costly and damaging policy with all its negative consequences was made possible by legitimizing strategies of US administration. This article seeks to analyze the legitimizing discourse of the Bush administration through metaphor and predicate analysis. The findings show how American officials and in particular President Bush, by relying on hegemonic discourses such as liberalism and American exceptionalism, constructed a new representation of the self and the other through which US practices and policies could be justified.

This paper aims to demonstrate the relation between territory, state and terror in the contemporary world as concrete terms which represent the territorial aspects of sovereignty. Using a historical conceptual analysis, it tries to illustrate that sovereignty is an issue at the intersection of terror and territory because it operates as the crucial bridge between terror and state and is integral to territorial state. To this end, territory is defined as the spatial extent of sovereignty based on the “the concept of space”. Subsequently, it becomes clear why the apparently univocal national borders which serve as the absolute model of the border institution, in fact constitute only a part of the government’s institutions. These borders could never exist independent of other alignments that allow them to function on a local as well as a global level; the very alignments that delineate sovereign territories. Building on these bases, this paper endeavors to show how to control a territory is to exercise violence within the boundaries of the modern nation-state and through this tries to prove the relationship between terror and territory. In this framework, it seeks to add a corrective approach to the modern political theory which is based on geometry: the Political geometry of inside and outside. The paper concludes that the fundamental concept of political philosophy is neither freedom nor political power, but borders; i.e. the very borders that construct the territory of a country. The final aim of the paper is to determine the political space of the “refugee” within the Topos of politics; because it is he/she who reveals the main aporia of the modern political theory: “borders”.

In April 10 occurred an important event in Iran that astonished Iranian’s government and court. Because Shah’s terror occurred by a loyal grads soldiers at same day. This news secreted for one day. But Iranian’s Medias announced and interoperated this event. This question discussed in Iranian’ Senate and national conical parliament. Some agents of national conical parliament condemned this terror and another’s speech about this event was very wonderful from Discourse analyze. Because some agents of national conical parliament spoke about Shah’s place and kingdom rank and praised them. They tolled the Shah and kingdom place are cause of Iran’ continuity, constancy and pride. This speech was the abstract of official discourse of Pahlavi’s state. This article attempted analyzed this discourse by discourse analyzing method. Because this question is very important in Iranian’s thought. This research tray to reveals the hidden ideology and social practice at this discourse and review relations between power and ideology.